As I watched the tsunami sweep the Japanese coastline on YouTube, my jaw dropped and my mind was also swept by a tsunami of sympathy for the Japanese people. My heart aches even more when I think of the disastrous long-term effects of nuclear radiation from the nuclear plant meltdowns.

This is the third energy-related disaster in the last few years, after the West Virginia coal mine explosion and BP oil spill. The nuclear meltdowns in Japan are yet another warning sign; the way we currently produce energy is unsustainable and fraught with risks. I support the residents of Pueblo who stood up this week for our basic rights to be free of the health and environmental risks of a nuclear power plant.

I believe that safe, clean and renewable energy sources like solar and wind powers will save our future. I don’t want our community to relive the trauma that the Japanese are going through.

Minji Kim, Denver

This letter was published in the March 19 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2].

While the events at the nuclear reactors in Japan are dramatic, they pale in comparison to the devastation from the earthquake and tsunami. Given the nuclear technology, the crisis at the reactors will not result in anything that can cause major health effects in the public. It is possible we may see a partial meltdown such as at Three Mile Island, where the containment structures designed to prevent release of all but a very small amount of radioactivity did their job. They were designed for just such an occurrence. While this is certainly not something to be ignored, a Chernobyl-type event is not really possible.

Within all the drama, it is important to remember that these plants suffered a nearly unheard-of earthquake and tsunami and yet continue to provide significant protection to the public.

Robert C. Amme, Denver

This letter was published in the March 19 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2].

No one yet knows how much radiation will ultimately be released from the failed nuclear reactors in Japan. Risks to the public go beyond that of acute radiation sickness, which occurs when large doses are sustained all at once. The bigger concern is the increase in cancer and birth defects for the potentially millions of people exposed to radionuclides over the long term. For example, cesium and strontium cause a number of different cancers, and remain dangerous for hundreds of years. Plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years. Even one inhaled particle of plutonium can cause lung cancer.

It is not possible to ensure that a nuclear power plant will never fail. It is outrageous to be trying to revive the nuclear industry in this country by offering tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees when safer, renewable options are available. What could we accomplish if we committed those resources to renewable energy instead?

Roberta M. Richardson, M.D., Lakewood

The writer is president of Colorado Physicians for Social Responsibility.

This letter was published in the March 19 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2].

Hats off to the 50 workers at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant for putting themselves at risk for the good of all. We should all admire them — and remember our heroes of Rocky Flats, who are still suffering from nuclear exposure. War or Cold War, it took courage. Let’s not forget them.

Thomas McCann, Aurora

This letter was published in the March 19 edition. For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here[2].

I’m generallya pro-nuclear power advocate, but with caution. This nuclear power plant was one of the oldest n the world, of two different designs, and located in the world’s highest probability of earthquake and tsunami, and built on the shore of the ocean facing the open ocean where tsunamis comes from. It was designed to withstand an earthquake – which it did, as well as a “standard” tsunami by predicted expectations, but this earthquake and tsunami were larger than ever recorded. Duh! The sea wall was built for a 6 ft tsunami, but this tsunami was 7ft – in reality it was 76 feet high elsewhere. Japan which is supposed to be the best prepared for earthquakes and tsunamis, but their “excuse” at the extensive damage was – this earthquake/tsunami was larger than ever expected.

It’s one thing to design your sea walls and home and business building construction for earthquakes/tsunami – but WHY would you build an nuclear facility on the shore facing where the largest tsumanis in the world occur? “Tsunami” is a Japanese term, for good reason. Had the Japanese had the forththought to modernize this plant and better protect it or better – build it on higher ground – this extra tragedy wouldn’t be happening. All it took was a little extra protection – a little extra foresight. We have nuclear power plants on the ocean in California. What the advantage is, I’m not sure, but California is earthquake country as well, and the earthquake in Japan caused a mini tsunami in Calif. Germany has shut down it’s nuclear reactors and reviewing them for safety, so are other countries. But not the U.S. – Obama has been told they’re safe.

While nuclear power can be made safe, if not safer, the cost is always the criteria. Fossil fuel power conversion is still cheaper. But we haven’t completely explored or taken advantage of wind and solar power. That should be explored first before we turn back to nuclear power, and when we do, standards learned from previous disasters need to be applied.

#2 Comment By toohip On March 19, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

I’m generallya pro-nuclear power advocate, but with caution. This nuclear power plant was one of the oldest n the world, of two different designs, and located in the world’s highest probability of earthquake and tsunami, and built on the shore of the ocean facing the open ocean where tsunamis comes from. It was designed to withstand an earthquake – which it did, as well as a “standard” tsunami by predicted expectations, but this earthquake and tsunami were larger than ever recorded. Duh! The sea wall was built for a 6 ft tsunami, but this tsunami was 7ft – in reality it was 76 feet high elsewhere. Japan which is supposed to be the best prepared for earthquakes and tsunamis, but their “excuse” at the extensive damage was – this earthquake/tsunami was larger than ever expected.

It’s one thing to design your sea walls and home and business building construction for earthquakes/tsunami – but WHY would you build an nuclear facility on the shore facing where the largest tsumanis in the world occur? “Tsunami” is a Japanese term, for good reason. Had the Japanese had the forththought to modernize this plant and better protect it or better – build it on higher ground – this extra tragedy wouldn’t be happening. All it took was a little extra protection – a little extra foresight. We have nuclear power plants on the ocean in California. What the advantage is, I’m not sure, but California is earthquake country as well, and the earthquake in Japan caused a mini tsunami in Calif. Germany has shut down it’s nuclear reactors and reviewing them for safety, so are other countries. But not the U.S. – Obama has been told they’re safe.

While nuclear power can be made safe, if not safer, the cost is always the criteria. Fossil fuel power conversion is still cheaper. But we haven’t completely explored or taken advantage of wind and solar power. That should be explored first before we turn back to nuclear power, and when we do, standards learned from previous disasters need to be applied.

#3 Comment By RabidRadical On March 19, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

The problem that separates nuclear power from other power sources is the long-lasting result of failure. If a coal-fired, hydro-electric, etc. plant gets destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami, it’s very inconvenient as there is no electricity. If a nuke gets wiped out…well, just turn on the news; and hope and pray they can get the fuel cooled and that the radiation leaks aren’t significant and that the damage to the environment, cities, people, etc., is as short-lived as possible.

All I can really say is, “Sh*t happens.” Try as we might, we cannot plan for nor build for all eventualities. As long as there are nuclear power plants, there will always be the risk of catastrophe.

#4 Comment By RabidRadical On March 19, 2011 @ 3:39 pm

The problem that separates nuclear power from other power sources is the long-lasting result of failure. If a coal-fired, hydro-electric, etc. plant gets destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami, it’s very inconvenient as there is no electricity. If a nuke gets wiped out…well, just turn on the news; and hope and pray they can get the fuel cooled and that the radiation leaks aren’t significant and that the damage to the environment, cities, people, etc., is as short-lived as possible.

All I can really say is, “Sh*t happens.” Try as we might, we cannot plan for nor build for all eventualities. As long as there are nuclear power plants, there will always be the risk of catastrophe.

#5 Comment By jeff0528 On March 19, 2011 @ 9:23 pm

Please read Vincent Carroll’s editorial piece in this same edition of the Post. Whether or not you agree with his political positions, the primary message to take from article is that nothing we do is without risk.

If you want to compare “the problem that separates nuclear power from other power sources” you need to consider more than just the effect of a catastrophic failure of a single plant or complex of plants. Coal plants emit combustion products, such as greenhouse gases like CO2, others are respiratory irritants, precursors of ground level ozone formation, many can be toxic at concentrations much higher than found in the exhaust from this type of plant. And where do you think the coal comes from? Mining operations are energy intensive and create their own “unpleasant” short term and long term issues. Oh, and the coal needs to be transported to from the mine to the plant, frequently by train – another energy user. Care to make a guess on the number of people injured or worse in railroad accidents?

Whether or not you believe in human caused climate change, don’t you think the risk to the environment of continuing to burn fossil fuels could be a “long-lasting result of failure”?